Barin Ghosh, C.J.
Delay Condonation Application No. 1560 of 2012
1. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the application for delay in preferring the revision.
CTR No. 4 of 2012
Under Section 57 of the VAT Act, revisionist placed a query before the Commissioner, as to whether, the product dealt by him that is ''crushed stone'' will come under the residuary provision provided in Section 4 of the Act, before the amendment was effected to the Schedule on 21st January, 2006. The Commissioner answered the question holding out that ''Yes'' the product will come under the residuary provision. Revisionist then approached the Tribunal and has challenged the finding of the Commissioner. The finding of the Commissioner has been reaffirmed by the Tribunal, hence the present revision.2. We have not been persuaded to take a different view contrary to concurrent views expressed by two lower authorities. The revision accordingly fails and is dismissed.
